ORS 813.220
Matters to be considered by court in determining to allow diversion agreement

reasons for denial

Text
Annotations 4

After the time for requesting a hearing under ORS 813.210 (Petition) has expired with no request for a hearing, or after a hearing requested under ORS 813.210 (Petition), the court shall determine whether to allow or deny a petition for a driving while under the influence of intoxicants diversion agreement. In making a determination under this section, the court:

(1)

Shall consider whether the diversion will be of benefit to the defendant and the community.

(2)

May take into consideration whether there was an early recognition by the defendant during the proceeding that a course of diagnosis and treatment of problem drinking, alcoholism or drug dependency would be beneficial.

(3)

May take into consideration whether there is a probability that the defendant will cooperate with the diagnostic assessment and treatment agencies.

(4)

May take into consideration whether the defendant will observe the restrictions contained in the diversion agreement.

(5)

May take into consideration whether the offense was committed in a motor vehicle and whether there was a passenger in the motor vehicle who was under 18 years of age and at least three years younger than the defendant.

(6)

Shall deny the petition for a driving while under the influence of intoxicants diversion agreement if the defendant failed to appear at an arraignment on the present offense without good cause.

(7)

Shall deny the petition for a driving while under the influence of intoxicants diversion agreement if, after the date the defendant filed the petition, the defendant was charged with or convicted of:

(a)

An offense of driving while under the influence of intoxicants in violation of:

(A)

ORS 813.010 (Driving under the influence of intoxicants); or

(B)

The statutory counterpart to ORS 813.010 (Driving under the influence of intoxicants) in another jurisdiction;

(b)

A driving under the influence of intoxicants offense in another jurisdiction that involved the impaired driving of a vehicle due to the use of intoxicating liquor, cannabis, psilocybin, a controlled substance, an inhalant or any combination thereof; or

(c)

A driving offense in another jurisdiction that involved operating a vehicle while having a blood alcohol content above that jurisdiction’s permissible blood alcohol content.

(8)

Shall deny the petition for a driving while under the influence of intoxicants diversion agreement if the defendant participated in a driving while under the influence of intoxicants diversion program or in any similar alcohol or drug rehabilitation program, other than a program entered into as a result of the charge for the present offense, in this state or in another jurisdiction after the date the defendant filed the petition.

(9)

Shall deny the petition for a driving while under the influence of intoxicants diversion agreement if the defendant was charged with or convicted of an offense of aggravated vehicular homicide or of murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide or assault that resulted from the operation of a motor vehicle in this state or in another jurisdiction after the date the defendant filed the petition.

(10)

Shall deny the petition for a driving while under the influence of intoxicants diversion agreement if the defendant has been convicted of a felony offense described in ORS 813.010 (Driving under the influence of intoxicants) (5)(a).

(11)

For the purposes of subsection (7) of this section, may not consider a conviction for a driving offense in another jurisdiction based solely on a person under 21 years of age having a blood alcohol content that is lower than the permissible blood alcohol content in that jurisdiction for a person 21 years of age or older as a prior conviction.

(12)

May not deny the petition for a driving while under the influence of intoxicants diversion agreement solely on the basis that the defendant is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, the reserve components of the Armed Forces of the United States or the National Guard and has been called or demonstrates that the defendant will be called to active duty, and the military service will impair the defendant’s ability to complete the diversion program. [1983 c.338 §371; 1987 c.441 §6; 1997 c.749 §6; 1999 c.1051 §296; 2003 c.445 §2; 2007 c.867 §15; 2007 c.879 §7; 2011 c.197 §1; 2017 c.21 §86; 2021 c.253 §12]

Source: Section 813.220 — Matters to be considered by court in determining to allow diversion agreement; reasons for denial, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors813.html.

Notes of Decisions

Under former similar statute

Trial court exceeded discretion in requiring plea of “guilty” or “no contest” as condition precedent to diversion agreement. Erickson v. Municipal Court Judge of City of Corvallis, 71 Or App 339, 692 P2d 628 (1984)

In general

Where defendant did not see alcohol evaluation in period of over seven months between his arrest and trial, trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s petition for diversion. State v. Thomas, 85 Or App 460, 737 P2d 143 (1987)

Alcohol rehabilitation program that defendant undertakes on own initiative for purpose other than avoiding legal sanctions is not “similar” to driving under influence of intoxicants diversion program. State v. Warrington, 219 Or App 566, 184 P3d 1160 (2008)

California:	Codes
Colorado:	C.R.S.
Nevada:	NRS
New York:	Laws
Oregon:	OAR, ORS
Texas:	Statutes
World:	Rome Statute, International Dictionary

ORS 813.220 Matters to be considered by court in determining to allow diversion agreement

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(a)

(A)

(B)

(b)

(c)

(8)

(9)